Mass. Gen. Laws » Part III Title II Chapter 231B
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231B, § 2 (2026)

Pro rata shares of tortfeasors in entire liability; determination

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 2. In determining the pro rata shares of tortfeasors in the entire liability (a) their relative degrees of fault shall not be considered; (b) if equity requires, the collective liability of some as a group shall constitute a single share; and (c) principles of equity applicable to contribution generally shall apply.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: Zeller v. Cantu, 478 N.E.2d 930 (Mass. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zeller v. Cantu, 478 N.E.2d 930 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 12× “In this case we are asked to decide whether contribution among joint tortfeasors is to be apportioned on a pro rata basis, pursuant to G.L.c. 231B, § 2 (1984 ed.), or whether codefendants' liability should be apportioned on the basis of their relative degrees of fault.”
Moore v. Murphy (In Re Murphy), 297 B.R. 332 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2003). “2d 930 (1985) (interpreting Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 231B § 2 (Uniform Joint Tortfeasors Act) and holding that a codefendant’s share of damages are attributed on a pro rata basis).”
Econ. Eng'g Co. v. Commonwealth, 604 N.E.2d 694 (Mass. 1992). “See G. L. c. 231B, § 2 (a) (1990 ed.); Zeller v.”
Fraco Prods., Ltd. v. Bostonian Masonry Corp., 995 N.E.2d 1125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “9 Further, as the court indicated in Rathbun , indemnification between joint tortfeasors based on relative fault would seem functionally indistinguishable from contribution based on degree of fault, an approach the Legislature expressly precluded in G. L. c. 231B, § 2(a). See…”
Everest Nat'l Ins. v. Berkeley Place Restaurant Ltd. P'ship, 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 24 (Suffolk Mass. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “” G.L.c. 231B, §2(b). The second question is whether, under G.”
Zeller v. Cantu, 478 N.E.2d 930 (Mass. 1985). “23IB so as to require consideration of comparative fault in assessing contribution among joint tortfeasors; (2) by making “principles of equity *78 applicable to contribution,” G. L. c. 231B, § 2 (c) (1984 ed.), sanctions an apportionment of damages by comparative fault; and (3)…”
Cartagena v. Lotus Dev. Corp., 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 581 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “4, indemnification as between joint tortfeasors based on degree of fault would seem functionally indistinguishable from contribution based on degree of fault, an approach the legislature expressly precluded in G.L.c. 231B, §2(a).”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231B, § 2(a) — 2 cases
Fraco Prods., Ltd. v. Bostonian Masonry Corp., 995 N.E.2d 1125 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “9 Further, as the court indicated in Rathbun , indemnification between joint tortfeasors based on relative fault would seem functionally indistinguishable from contribution based on degree of fault, an approach the Legislature expressly precluded in G. L. c. 231B, § 2(a). See…”
Cartagena v. Lotus Dev. Corp., 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 581 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). “4, indemnification as between joint tortfeasors based on degree of fault would seem functionally indistinguishable from contribution based on degree of fault, an approach the legislature expressly precluded in G.L.c. 231B, §2(a).”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231B, § 2(b) — 1 case
Everest Nat'l Ins. v. Berkeley Place Restaurant Ltd. P'ship, 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 24 (Suffolk Mass. Super. Ct. 2016). “” G.L.c. 231B, §2(b). The second question is whether, under G.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.